In Citizenfour, the whistleblower and protagonist, Edward Snowden was very methodical in his approach to avoiding the trappings, which go along with developing a cult of personality. Snowden, the whistleblower, made it clear to Poitras, the filmmaker, that he did not want the story she documented to be about him. Often, important messages are overshadowed by the messenger. Snowden made it clear to Poitras that the story he was presenting concerned state domestic surveillance and other policies, which harm the interests and Constitutional rights of the American people. So, not surprisingly, Snowden’s image in the film appeared heroic. Laura Poitras’ documentary focus was kept on the crimes of state, not any potential moral crimes of the messenger. His personal character never came under scrutiny. And Edward Snowden’s heroic portrait was further reinforced by Oliver Stone‘s timely iteration, which featured an ensemble cast starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the title character.

Risk, which is about the WikiLeaks organisation, or rather its founder Julian Assange, on the other hand, is another type of documentary film entirely. Laura Poitras began filming Risk, initially titled Asylum, before filming Citizenfour. It seems, perhaps, now that Poitras, having won an Academy Award for Citizenfour and earned a certain level of credibility, or even street cred, with having risked her personal safety and liberty with her involvement with whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations, she returned to her long-running work on her WikiLeaks documentary project with a different attitude. Here we see Poitras abandon the wide-scope view of social context, which she employed in Citizenfour. Instead of the wide-scope view to keep the focus on the sociopolitical message not the messenger, Poitras adopted a very narrow focus on Julian Assange, the messenger, rather than the message of the WikiLeaks organisation or its diverse members, or the important function of a publisher such as WikiLeaks. Perhaps, Assange: A Moral Case Study, might be a more descriptive title for Poitras’ latest documentary film.

In contrast to Citizenfour, Risk tends to put the character of WikiLeaks’ male leaders on trial. But then, Assange, with his less than charming facets, does seem to invite a form of attention, which Snowden has never done. And Assange’s associate Jacob Appelbaum didn’t help the image of Assange’s WikiLeaks organisation when he made an inappropriate (or culturally insensitive) analogy between condoms breaking, safe sex, and safe computing at a digital workshop in Tunisia. And, meanwhile Assange as a public figure and whistleblower is arguably facing much more difficult circumstances than Snowden. Assange, of course, caught a case of sex crime allegations from two women in Sweden. So, Assange sought and was granted asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, to avoid extradition to Sweden, which would almost certainly lead to a later extradition to the United States for his work in WikiLeaks. It’s exceedingly obvious Julian Assange is one of the most wanted people by the USA, the world’s most powerful national government, essentially, for practicing good journalism, for engaging in the only profession protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Poitras was never quite explicit in the film, nor in succeeding interviews and discussions about the film, that Julian Assange is a sex offender. But at some point in the documentary, Poitras shifts her attention away from WikiLeaks and the broader world of whistleblowers to a microscopic focus on Julian Assange’s personal character. After a certain point, perhaps after Citizenfour, Poitras began to consistently insinuate and suggest allegations against Julian Assange, which appear to be subtle character assassination. Or, at the very least, Poitras seems to have taken decisive steps to complete her WikiLeaks project after her success with Citizenfour, in a way, which preserved most of her journalistic integrity whilst distancing herself from Julian Assange, who is still considered an enemy of the U.S. government. It’s almost as if Poitras simply decided her documentary film would no longer be about WikiLeaks and the broader important sociopolitical issues and, instead, be only about Julian Assange or some alleged culture of male sexual predation within WikiLeaks. According to WikiLeaks’ attorneys, Poitras’ defied her agreements with Assange and the WikiLeaks organisation by filming people who were not supposed to be filmed and by taking footage out of context. Also, according to Poitras herself, Poitras engages in gonzo journalism, or cinéma vérité, by becoming a part of the film. Poitras has to admit in her film’s narration, that she engaged in a romantic affair with WikiLeaks’ Jacob Appelbaum during the filming of Risk. At this point, the documentary film seems completely compromised by conflicts of interest. Eventually, Poitras’ Risk is forced to document the fact that the sexual allegations against Julian Assange were dropped for lack of evidence. Yet, the legal exoneration of Julian Assange doesn’t alter Poitras’ evident condemnation of him as some sort of male chauvinist, homophobic, anti-feminist pig, or from prioritising the gender issues within WikiLeaks over the larger sociopolitical issues of justice, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the First Amendment, and other human rights.

By 2015, it seemed Laura Poitras, Academy Award in hand, no longer needed WikiLeaks or Julian Assange to further her career as a filmmaker and industry luminary. (Poitras seems very comfortable now producing less-subversive or less-controversial (or less-radical) short-form human interest story documentaries for Field of Vision, a First Look Media project. First Look Media is the philanthropic journalism project founded in 2013 by billionaire e-Bay founder Pierre Omidyar with the expert legalistic and journalistic input of Dr. Glen Greenwald. Omidyar’s First Look Media is “a collaboration with [Dr.] Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras with a promised $250 million in funding from Omidyar, also gave birth to The Intercept, a news organisation for “aggressive and independent adversarial journalism”.) Apparently, Poitras’ decision (perhaps with collaborator Dr. Glen Greenwald) to publish the Snowden leaks through The Guardian (and later through The Intercept) instead of WikiLeaks, when Poitras had already begun working with Julian Assange on a documentary about WikiLeaks, was also a point of contention between Poitras and Assange.

The great public advocate and political leader Ralph Nader has famously argued that one shouldn’t have to be a saint to be a political leader or a political advocate. And Ralph Nader has also admitted to avoiding being caught up in sexual allegations and scandals by being very careful about avoiding suspicious propositions from women. This is why Nader never married; he has pointed out the great strain, which intense political activity can put on a spouse. We know it’s a great sacrifice people like Ralph Nader make when they dedicate their lives to their careers in public service working to make society better because it often means such people must often live solitary lives. We now know that famous leaders, such as MLK and JFK, were documented in their extramarital sins by their political opponents as means to undermine their political efforts. So, if we’re going to charge Julian Assange harshly and call him a sexist or male chauvinist, we must be prepared to do the same for all such beloved leaders. But, as Ralph Nader can attest, if one wishes to be an effective public advocate or political leader, and if one is male, one must be nothing less than a perfect gentleman at all times or risk being brought down by allegations of moral wrongdoing or scandal. Shills and political sabotage abound. If one gets caught slipping, right or wrong, it could mean the end of one’s credibility, political influence, or career.

Whether Risk depicts Julian Assange in a heroic light or in an unflattering light, it is undeniable that his contributions as well as those of the entire WikiLeaks organisation, like the contributions of Edward Snowden, working with filmmaker Laura Poitras and lawyer and journalist Glenn Greenwald, have benefited the world greatly. [1] Risk premiered in the Directors’ Fortnight section at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. And it is currently being screened on the Showtime cable television network and various online video streaming services. Check it out at a friend’s place if, like me, you don’t have an expensive cable subscription.

“Director Laura Poitras’ falling out with Julian Assange” by Associated Press (AP), posted to YouTube on May 10, 2017. This is a very brief news clip, 90 seconds long. But it seems designed to discredit Julian Assange. Poitras is first quoted saying that she disagrees with some of WikiLeaks’ publications not being “newsworthy” or not being redacted properly. Then, she is forced to admit that WikiLeaks is a legitimate publisher, which has played a very important role in public understanding of domestic surveillance and its impacts upon freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Then, the AP editors cut to a clip from Risk, in which Poitras’ narration laments: “This is not the film I thought I was making. I thought I could ignore the contradictions. I thought they were not part of the story. I was wrong. They are becoming the story.” But Poitras is never explicit about what these “contradictions” are. But, given the sexual allegations against Assange, Poitras’ insinuations are obvious. Most of the film operates under this premise of mystery and scandal permeating Assanges’s sex life, even as she documents his legal exoneration. The AP editors, then cut to Poitras admitting that Assange wanted her to “share some of the documents” with WikiLeaks; but she refused. Presumably, this is a reference to Poitras deciding not to publish Edward Snowden’s historic disclosures through WikiLeaks. And this caused a “bit of a falling out” between the two during the filming of Risk, initially titled Asylum. AP doesn’t give us any more information than these cryptic remarks from Poitras strung together to paint Assange as some sort of villain. But a closer examination of these events reveals that Poitras actually became a competitor with WikiLeaks, as she angled to promote her own news publication, The Intercept, on which she collaborated with journalists Jeremy Scahill and Dr. Glen Greenwald.

***

“Assange objects to new Wikileaks documentary” by RT UK, posted to YouTube on July 25, 2017. An attorney for Julian Assange, Melinda Taylor, explained legal objections to Laura Poitras’ film Risk.

***

[1] As others have pointed out, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last decade or so, most readers will likely have already heard about the characters featured by documentarian Laura Poitras: Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning, Edward Snowden, et al. But if you haven’t, for background starting points, see here and here and here.

Instead of keeping the focus on the political issues, Poitras focused in on the personal contradictions of the embattled WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange. It turns out, as with other admired historical figures in history, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, Assange is likely a womanizer and a male chauvinist. But, whereas admirers of MLK and JFK preferred to keep personal failings in the closet, today’s documentarians, such as Laura Poitras, feel compelled to make the story about the messenger, rather than the message, when they feel personally slighted or offended.

There are many useful film reviews at the aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes. Tom Huddleston of Time Out summed up Laura Poitras’ Risk very well, calling it: “A jaw-dropping profile of one man’s battle with world governments, common decency and his own out-of-control ego.”

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—A new documentary entitled The State of Eugenics (2016) will be screened at UC Berkeley‘s Boalt Hall, School of Law, tomorrow night (Tuesday, March 21st, 2017, 5-7:30pm). [1] The film’s director, a self-described filmalist (i.e., filmmaker/journalist), Dawn Sinclair Shapiro will be in attendance at UC Berkeley for a Q&A as well as part of an event sponsored by the UCBDepartment of Gender and Women’s Studies. The film is

about the eugenic sterilization program [in] North Carolina [which] ran between the 1930s and 1970s. The film documents how that long-forgotten program was brought back to light by researchers and journalists, resulting in a pitched political battle over compensating victims.

Questions of genetic enhancement and reproductive rights are controversial because they touch upon issues of women’s rights, discrimination, race, and class. The eugenics movement became negatively associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials attempted to justify their human rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs. Lumpenproletariat acquaintance (c. 2010-2012)Sabrina Jacobs has interviewed the film’s director Dawn Sinclair Shapiro. Listen (and/or download) here. [2]

UPDATE—[21 MAR 2017] Free speech radio’s UpFront has also broadcast an interview with filmalistDawn Sinclair Shapiro on The State of Eugenics. Listen (and/or download) here. [3]

Film Screening: The State of Eugenics

Please join us at 5:00 pm on March 21, 2017 at UC Berkeley for a free screening of The State of Eugenics, the just-released film about the eugenic sterilization program North Carolina ran between the 1930’s and 1970’s. The film documents how that long-forgotten program was brought back to light by researchers and journalists, resulting in a pitched political battle over compensating victims.

Comments and Q&A after the screening by filmmaker Dawn Sinclair Shapiro and University of Michigan Professor Alexandra Minna Stern.

Pizza and refrehsments will be provided at no additional cost!

This is the second event of the 2017 Being Human in a Biotech Age Film Series at UC Berkely.

Film is captioned but we are not able to provide live captioners/interpreters.

About the Film:

The State of Eugenics shines a light on a sorry and often-forgotten chapter in American history— the forced sterilization of thousands of Americans thought to have “undesirable” genetic make-ups. The film follows researchers and journalists who delved into dusty archives to bring North Carolina’s extensive eugenics program into the sunlight. When the journalists succeed in connecting those files to living survivors and the vast network of perpetrators are revealed, a grassroots movement begins, tirelessly insisting the state confront its nefarious past. The documentary— four years in the making, brings into focus the human tragedy that unfolded behind closed doors for decades and gives voice to survivors who believed their poverty would leave their stories untold and their pain unrecognized.

Across four decades, the state of North Carolina sterilized more than 7,600 people— men and women, adults and adolescents. The program ended in the 1970’s, dismantled after a landmark lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of survivor Nial Ruth Cox. This sordid history had been largely forgotten until December 2002 when the Winston–Salem Journal published a five-part series, “Against Their Will,” that examined in stunning detail North Carolina’s eugenics program.

Historian Johanna Schoen and reporters John Railey, Kevin Begos and Danielle Deaver put the horrors of forced sterilization back in the headlines, prompting Governor Mike Easley to apologize for his state’s eugenics policies. That apology, however, provided only cold comfort to survivors. The film interweaves the stories of crusading journalists and contrite politicians with the inner thoughts of eugenics survivors: Nial Ruth Cox, Willis Lynch, and Dorothy Mae Grant. The three had been sterilized as teenagers by a state Eugenics Board that had become increasingly aggressive about advocating for sterilization as the answer to problems of entrenched poverty.

As survivors’ stories unfold in the film, a new effort to atone for the wrongs done to them emerges— monetary compensation.

About the Speakers:

Dawn Sinclair Shapiro began her journalism career working for the award winning news magazine program, CBS News Sunday Morning.Dawn has worked as a Producer, Associate Producer, Writer, Online Editor/Writer for Tribune Broadcasting, CNBC, MSNBC, Dateline NBC and Chicago Public Radio. She directed, wrote and produced her first feature length documentary, “Inside the Handy Writers’ Colony”, which aired nationally on PBS on October 23, 2008. In addition to the summer 2010 release of The Edge of Joy, current projects include post-production on Dialogues with China, a character study of world-renowned curator of contemporary Chinese art, Wu Hung.

Alexandra Minna Stern is a Professor of American Culture at the University of Michigan, and hold appointments in the Departments of History, Women’s Studies, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. Currently she directs the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies and co-direct the Reproductive Justice Faculty Program based at the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. Her research has focused on the history of eugenics, genetics, society, and justice in the United States and Latin America. She also has written about the history of public health, infectious diseases, and tropical medicine. Through these topics, she has explored the dynamics of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, disability, social difference, and reproductive politics.

broadcast summary: “Anthony Platt’s book “Bloodlines,” which begins with the Huntington Library announcing its ownership of an original copy of the Nuremberg Laws, explores anti-Semitism, German and US eugenics, and the responsibilities of cultural institutions.”

broadcast summary: “Anna Stubblefield talks about how the US eugenics movement produced distinctions between “pure” and “tainted” whites, which led to the sterilization of many white women classified as feebleminded. And Heather MacDonald has made a film about anti-gay politics and violence in Oregon in the context of a divisive ballot measure.”

broadcast summary: “We want to cure cancer, end war, and clean up the environment. But, what do we lose if we end the disabilities caused by these things? þ Our guest is Dr. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, a professor in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Emory University who works in the field of Critical Disability Studies. þ Let’s end war and, in the process, stop creating veterans with PTSD and brain injuries. Let’s clean up the environment and end the epidemic of chemical sensitivity. Let’s cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases so people will not suffer their pain and limitation. þ But, wait. Consider that, historically, people with disabilities have been horribly abused and murdered to meet a eugenics goal of eliminating disability. When we assume prevention is positive, are we close to preaching a form of cultural genocide? Will we eliminate the many future intellectual and cultural contributions by people with various disabilities if we eliminate their disability? Do people with disabilities contribute something important, something that comes out of their experience of living with disabilities? þ Dr. Garland-Thomson navigates the philosophical, cultural and social landscape as Eddie Ytuarte asks, “Isn’t preventing disabilities a good idea. . . sometimes?””

broadcast summary: “Modern genetics offers parents the dream of choosing the characteristics of their children and aborting those who don’t fit their ideal. As scientists move in this direction, disabled people are understandably critical. They cite, for instance, the strong historical link between genetics and eugenics. þ In this program, Oakland writer Anne Finger explores these issues with Eddie Ytuarte through the lens of eugenics in the Soviet Union. þ Ms. Finger tells stories of a variety of unusual characters seeking real or supposed scientific truth amid the maelstrom of gigantic changes occurring in Russia before, during, and following the October 1917 Revolution. Her essay, “The Left Hand of Stalin: Eugenics in the Soviet Union,” appears in the volume, “Disability Politics in a Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Marta Russell.” þ In Nazi Germany the theory of eugenics brought the world the ideal of the perfect Aryan race. This led to the round up and death of 275 thousand people with disabilities and, eventually, the death chambers of the holocaust. þ Eugenic theory took a different tack in the Soviet Union where the goal was, not the perfection of a specific race, but the perfection of humanity as a whole. There was early USSR resistance to the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest,” Finger says, citing early scientists who found that, in the harsh Siberian climate “sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.” þ Join us for an in-depth look at eugenic-genetic questions. þ Produced and hosted by Eddie Ytuarte.”

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Not long ago, free speech radio’s Davey D delivered a set of remarks, which cited a cringe-worthy documentary about neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the midwest and their attempts to propagate bigoted and racist white nationalism. (Of course, one is hard pressed to think of any other kind.) Although he didn’t name the documentary film he was referencing, he did say it was about ten years old and featured Tom Metzger. Or, perhaps, he could’ve meant a 2015 documentary film, which is currently available on Netflix. It’s entitled Welcome to Leith. [1] The film was first released at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2015, before being screened at the SXSW Film Festival in March 2015. The film was then given a limited theatrical release in September 2015. Welcome to Leithwas later broadcast on PBS‘ series Independent Lens on April 4, 2016. Screen this important documentary film on YouTube or Netflix or other formats; and stay up-to-date with the state of the nation.

Perhaps, screen it for friends, family, or community. A film screening would be a small victory for humanity. An even greater victory would occur, if a screening of Welcome to Leith inspires postmortem analyses and reflection, giving us opportunities to learn and grow. Even greater victory would follow, should the bare and naked face of white supremacist ideology move people of conscience into actions of resistance or into Kingian non-violent civil disobedience coupled with an ongoing programme of grassroots political and socioeconomic education capable of promoting critical media literacy and galvanising political agency and working class solidarity. Then, a swelling majority of the American working class would see through the veil of racism and identity politics, which divides and conquers and distracts from the true levers of power and the true causes of economic misery, which are perpetually blamed on the ethnic other, as the real criminals, criminogenic economic elites, get away with the people’s resources.

You can walk, or you can run
You don’t have to be someone
I went on a summer cruise
Upon an ocean, born to lose
My brother said that he was dead
I saw his face and shook my head
Can you see where we can’t be?
We’re losing our blood in the sea
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation

From my home I traveled far
I drove in my stolen car
When it broke down, I kissed the ground
‘Cos I don’t kiss when you’re around
I don’t find that I have been
The portrait of an only son
If that’s the case, then who could tell
Where my story had begun?
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, the state of the nation
That’s causing deprivation
Oh, the state of the nation
That’s causing deprivation

Even now, I’m all alone
Behind a wall that’s made of stone
I think about where we have been
And all the sights that could be seen
I know it all could be worthwhile
If only I could force a smile
Now, we turn our backs to the sea
The shame of a nation we’ll never be
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation
Yes, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation

Leith is a town which had a population of 16 in 2010.[4] In May 2012, Craig Cobb, an American Canadian white nationalist Neo-Nazi, moved to Leith with the intention of building a community of people sharing his white nationalist ideology and gaining the electoral majority.[5] He purchased 12 plots of land.[6]

Nichols and Walker, who are based in New York, flew to North Dakota two months after they read an August 2013 New York Times article about Craig Cobb’s scheme to transform Leith into a white-supremacist town.[7] They made three trips to Leith within an 8-month period, each around 3 weeks long, for the production of the film.[8] 90 days were spent editing the film.[9] In June 2014 Nichols and Walker launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the production of the film. They surpassed their $60,000 goal, raising $64,751.[10] The directors cited Errol Morris as an influence for how they shot the film.[7]

Welcome to Leith received largely positive reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a 97% score based on 34 reviews, with an average rating of 7.7/10. The site’s consensus states: “As disturbing as it is thought-provoking, Welcome to Leith offers an uncomfortable — and essential — glimpse into a part of society many Americans would much rather ignore.”[11]Metacritic reports an 80 out of 100 rating based on 15 critics, indicating “generally favorable reviews”.[12]

Indiewire critic Kate Erbland gave the documentary a B grade, described it as “terrifying and insightful”.[13]

Perhaps, Welcome to Leith would have been strengthened by the inclusion of perspectives from relevant experts in the fields of sociology, political science, and political economy. Or, at the very least, it would’ve been refreshing to see the documentary film acknowledge the reality that racism and white supremacy is not merely an aberration in American society, but central to its foundational core. Nevertheless, the documentary film provides an important micro view of the ways white supremacy and white nationalism proliferates through society.

[2] “State of the Nation” is described as a protest song in the popular literature. It’s an interesting song, indeed. Bernard Sumner has always been one of our favourite singer-songwriters. And, notably, he’s always shown a strong solidarity with his working class background, which includes people of colour but also a certain sympathy for the white working class and underclass, which is often pulled down into the bog of racism and xenophobia. Sumner sings:

Can you see where we can’t be?
We’re losing our blood in the sea
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation

White nationalist neo-Nazi Craig Cobb and his supporters argued in the documentary film Welcome to Leith that his race was being “genocided” in their own country, meaning that miscegenation and multiculturalism is diluting or destroying the Aryan lineal descent and racial purity or racial hygiene. But of course, we can’t say Sumner is singing sympathetically to the sentiments of fears of a browning of white ethnicities. But, supposing the song was taking a sympathetic stance toward the downtrodden individual, if not his ideology, who can find nowhere else to take refuge or find solace but in the bowels of white nationalist groupings, then we observe the song concludes with an admission of shame:

Even now, I’m all alone
Behind a wall that’s made of stone
I think about where we have been
And all the sights that could be seen
I know it all could be worthwhile
If only I could force a smile
Now, we turn our backs to the sea
The shame of a nation we’ll never be

The sea, of course, being the great sea of ethnic and racial noise, which must be barricaded and shielded away from the pure Aryan race. It’s sad, to some extent, the ignorance, which is involved in the minds of the rank and file of American white supremacist groups. As race (conflating phenotype with genotype) has been established as an arbitrary social construct with no scientific basis, we still have people going around with illusory notions of racial purity in their minds. Large segments of economically vulnerable white working class Americans are woefully under-educated and subject to dogma and demagoguery. In a bungled attempt to build his cultural cache and celebrity profile, Neo-Nazi separatist American-Canadian Craig Cobb agreed to undergo DNA testing, which he, in his apparent ignorance of anthropology and biology, was certain would confirm to the world his Aryan purity. Instead, the DNA testing revealed his ancestry consisted of 86% European and 14% Sub-Saharan African, echoing the famous Dave Chapelle comedy skit, and rendering Craig Cobb a real-life Clayton Bigsby. Mr. Cobb attempted to dismiss his Sub-Saharan African ancestry as “statistical noise”. But now he has come under scrutiny from his fellow White supremacists. Imagine, suddenly, that all albinos decided that efforts toward scientific progress were making albinism extinct, that rates of albinism were dropping. It would be absurd to us, if suddenly they rose up in a hateful separatist albino nationalism, because we wouldn’t be expecting it. But white nationalism is not surprising because we know it has historical roots in economic and social privileges being bestowed upon ethnic whites at the expense of slavery, American apartheid, racism, Jim Crow, and so on and so forth. White supremacists, such as Craig Cobb, argue that their white nationalist groups deserve the same public tolerance, which is afforded to civil rights groups, such as the NAACP. What they fail to observe, however, is the fact that civil rights groups are not like white supremacist groups because civil rights groups grew out of a direct response against racism and white supremacy. The very existence of white nationalism in a nation necessitates its direct opposition by the people because it represents a permanently hostile and divisive political position with only one possible endgame: ethnic separation buttressed by economic and legal privileges for the so-called Aryan race, whatever that means.

***

[Image of Welcome to Leith film poster by source, used via fair use licensure.]

[NEW ORDER lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. “State of the Nation” lyrics are provided here for educational and personal use only.]